Forum:Wikination
Forum:Wikination is the community forum for this wiki where users discuss the way the site works and the way it should work, as well as non-Lovian community events and policies. The forum does not have authority to alter the site regulations or decide on proposed deletes, moves and blocks; it is a forum for the entire community to poll and discuss, and finally to pass the community's findings on to the site council. The forum is moderated by the site council members and the admins. Forum opening I hereby officially open the Community Forum! 06:01, October 1, 2010 (UTC) :Congratulations :P --OuWTBsjrief-mich 13:04, October 1, 2010 (UTC) ::horay!!!Marcus Villanova 19:28, October 1, 2010 (UTC) :::It is really a nice initiative. Makes things a lot more transparant. Love it! Dr. Magnus 09:52, October 3, 2010 (UTC) ::::I indeed hope it does 18:37, November 3, 2010 (UTC) :::::(late reactie) :P --OuWTBsjrief-mich 18:39, November 3, 2010 (UTC) Site council creation The site council will soon be created. 06:01, October 1, 2010 (UTC) : I hope to be apart of it! Marcus Villanova 19:28, October 1, 2010 (UTC) Discussion topic: uncontrolled growth? A number of users, of which User:Horton11 is the most prominent, have been writing articles at an amazing pace. The site administration has been unable to keep up. Of all the articles these users have created, only a few have been controled. They're often not finished or lacking in style and language. Mostly, they're left "unwikified". The most significant problem, though, is that their content is not adapted to Lovia. As you know, it is site regulation that all articles MUST CONCERN LOVIA. The spy articles were a good example of non-Lovian content: Lovia does even have a "secret service" they claim to have worked for. (The spy articles have been marked for deletion.) Should, and could, the community do something about this? Should we perhaps stop article creation for a while until we cleaned up and finished all these new articles? Opinions please. @BastardRoyale: Opinions, not speeches. 06:01, October 1, 2010 (UTC) :Well, we should at least have a "wikification" template, so we know which pages still need to be fixed. Trash should be deleted. Horton11 should realize that his edits aren't really OK and if he doesn't realize that he's on the right wiki here. --OuWTBsjrief-mich 13:06, October 1, 2010 (UTC) ::I know. The thing is we need support from the community. Also, describing in concreto what's wrong with his edits - and those of his "friends" - isn't always as easy. ::Let's make it: Template:Wikify. 15:29, October 1, 2010 (UTC) :::Well, you got my support :) I think structure and data coherence (gegevensovereenkomst?) is probably the most important for the wiki contents. For the attractiveness we need spelling and lay-out fixed, but those aren't my best points, so I can only help a bit with that :) --OuWTBsjrief-mich 15:50, October 1, 2010 (UTC) ::::I totally agree. If I would give you rollback rights, would you be likely to use them to revert some rubbish? 15:52, October 1, 2010 (UTC) :::::Which rubbish? --OuWTBsjrief-mich 15:53, October 1, 2010 (UTC) ::::::Vandalism, wrong spelling "corrections", etc. 16:00, October 1, 2010 (UTC) :::::::Ah ok, that's OK :) --OuWTBsjrief-mich 16:10, October 1, 2010 (UTC) ::::::::Well, then that'll be the first thing I'll propose to the site council :) 16:37, October 1, 2010 (UTC) :::::::::Good jónk :P --OuWTBsjrief-mich 17:33, October 1, 2010 (UTC) :::::::::yep. Marcus Villanova 19:28, October 1, 2010 (UTC) "Systematic sockpuppeting" The administrators of Wikination have always been suspicious about sockpuppets, because they can be very useful (and therefore manipulative) on this wiki. We know some of our (valued) users have had sockpuppets in the past. We also know some still do, and still use them. Now, there's one instant of "systematic" abuse that we are aware of. One of the users has abused several accounts (more than 7 and probably even more of which we are not aware), using different PCs to avoid IP similarity. Now, I contacted the Central Wikia a while ago about this problem. They told me we - that is the site administrators - have the full right to block users and to bust sockpuppet networks without "proof" (i.e. IPs), but with strong clues and potential danger to the website. I have tried several times to put it (the evidence) all together, but that has proven a difficult task. It is scattered across wikis, going as far as Wikipedia, the Dutch Wikistad and numerous Wikias I have even never visited. It is substantial and convincing. As I said, Wikia authorized the administrators to act in good faith and bust them. Nevertheless, I would like to hear some opinions from you. Blocking all the sockpuppets, and temporarily suspending the sockpuppet master's editing rights, may have far-reaching consequences. It is, however, for the good of the wiki. Users who abuse sockpuppets to control votes and to antagonize political movements, do not contribute to the wiki. They create a dangerous illusion that can fall apart at any time. 07:19, October 2, 2010 (UTC) :He has multiple Ip adresses. He also did have sockpuppets llike Pharaoh (at llamada). :Hints: :*Bombastic writing style :*Always wants to be in the positive spotlight :*mythologically nonsense :I know who you mean. He can be abbreviated as PM Pierlot McCrooke 07:56, October 2, 2010 (UTC) ::I'd say block them if they don't work together with other users and aren't willing to change their sockpuppet habits. Provocative users are not useful in my opinion. --OuWTBsjrief-mich 07:58, October 2, 2010 (UTC) :::The thing is that sockpuppets can always be useful to the site. Some sockpuppets actually do great work, I believe. But it is against site rules. Also, most sockpuppets seem to be here for other purposes: election fraud, political spectacle, etc. 08:09, October 2, 2010 (UTC) ::::Pff.. Difficult.. I think election fraud isn't something we'd like to see. And political spectacle has led to blocking users in the past. --OuWTBsjrief-mich 08:12, October 2, 2010 (UTC) :::::It is indeed a difficult matter. It is hard to prove, but it's harder to ignore the leads. 08:15, October 2, 2010 (UTC) ::::::Block seems best option. It would be a good signal to other potential sockpuppeteers. Martha Van Ghent 13:14, October 2, 2010 (UTC) :::::::Well, if it was, we probably wouldn't have any sockpuppets around anymore... Dimi has blocked tens of sockpuppets and also their masters in the past. But I don't believe it really works repulsively. --OuWTBsjrief-mich 06:41, October 3, 2010 (UTC) ::::::::First of all, let's make a list of (suspected) sock puppets. Am I right that you guys are referring to Drabo and Pierius Magnus? On Llamadawiki we did an IP-check and saw that they don't share an IP. Both IPs were, however, in the same province in the Netherlands, and we can therefore conclude that he possibly uses two computers. I have three at home, and probably most of you guys have also an extra one, so... SjorskingmaWikistad 07:12, October 3, 2010 (UTC) :::::::::That's right. In one e-mail, Pierius revealed to me that he used another computer to use User:William Johnson (more about that later): "de William Johnson account heb ik aangemaakt op de pc van een kameraad van me, zodat het IP zou afwijken van het mijne." (16 januari 2010) 07:33, October 3, 2010 (UTC) List #Drabo13 #Pierius Magnus #Pharao (Llamada only) #AdolfsManholt (Harvian Islands only) The Pierius Case I was indeed referring to Pierius/Drabo and his sockpuppets. This is a list of users of which I am fairly certain that they're linked to Pierius: # User:Pierius Magnus - the "real guy" # User:86.89.146.118 - his IP # User:Drabo13 - a sockpuppet he created to put his own love for the apartheid regime in (check Wikipedia), and to antagonize his "own communist movement" # User:Dani Yusef Ali-Baba - Pierius said to me in an e-mail: "de dani yusef account was van een vriend van me, ik heb de account al in november 2009 overgenomen maar heb dit niet doorgegeven met het plan om "gebruik" te maken van de dubbele accounts. ik dacht dat ik ermee weg zou komen vanwege de twee verschillende ip-adressen." (rough translation: "that account belonged to a frind of mine, until I took it over in November 2009" # User:William Johnson - Pierius confessed to me that this was a sockpuppet of his; also, William Johnson "himself" said on Wikination to be the same person as "Dani Yusef", so that makes sense. # User:Discutie # User:ArminBlanche - Wikia confirmed sockpuppetry # User:BastardRoyale - When ArminBlanche failed in being a good sockie, Pierius reincarnated that figure in the now wildly popular "BastardRoyale". In style, he is exactly Pierius. Bombastic speeches and all. He shows the typical traits of a bad Pierius sockie: joining a political movement against his own (Drabo), admiring the concept of royalty, being scandal-loving, mixing informal styles with bombastic populism, etc. As we all see, BastardRoyale just took over the status of User:Pierius Magnus as Pierius' main account. Personally, I am very, very strongly inclined to think that Dietrich Honecker was a puppet of his too. On the other hand, there's way less evidence to back this up, so I'm not including him in the list. Other people from the IGP past are very likely also linked to either Dietrich or Pierius (or both, if I'm right). Evidence that link together the users mentioned above? * Wikipedia: past of relentless sockpuppetry * Wikipedia: interest for the Apartheid regime (~Drabo) * Motifs: ** monarchy and aristocracy ("Baron") ** communism (Pierius, Bastard) versus extreme-rightism or conservativism (Drabo, William Johnson) ** bombastic writing style (all sockies) ** the denial of being/having a sockpuppet: he does it every time and goes quite far in doing it ** ambiguous relationship with Pierlot ** knowledge of Dutch, or Dutch-influenced writing in English ** the ability to switch sides constantly in a debate * He has confessed to at least two sockies. * Wikia has confirmed at least one other sockie. * etc. Please add more details, sockpuppets, evidence, etc. underneath. 07:33, October 3, 2010 (UTC) :BTW: Only sockpuppets on Wikination requiring blocking. You may give us the names of the other ones, but we first of all need those which he USED HERE. 07:33, October 3, 2010 (UTC) ::Yes, when I saw the wikipedia account page a few months ago, I had a sort of mental breakthrough. All pieces fell together, and I suddenly realized that Magnus was the sock puppeteer. SjorskingmaWikistad 07:41, October 3, 2010 (UTC) ::Brenda Young (crappy logo making, fascism), Meliander Chlionides (Bombastic) Pharao (Confessed sockie), AdolfsManholt (suspected sockie of Drabo, and therefore Magnus) Unlawful (same story) Nieuwe Start (confessed sockie) SjorskingmaWikistad 07:43, October 3, 2010 (UTC) :::Same here. Cmon, what are the odds!? Which Wikipedia user has a substantial interest in (and support of) the South African apartheid regime? Knowing this, it all ties together. I suppose it's a bit like this: :::# Pierius has one account and does just fine. :::# Pierius needs another one for a political purpose, or just wants to make one for fun. He uses some of his not so well known characteristics and enlargens them within the "personality" of his new sockie. :::# This process goes on for a while; he gets more sockies as the time goes by. Some of them are busted though, and that's when he creates new ones. The transition between ArminBlanche and Bastard is the textbook example of this process. :::# In the end, there are so many different users, all sort of linked to Pierius, but most with specific traits that Pierius doesn't seem to have. The thing is to think deeper: those traits are Pierius', but he suppresses them in Pierius, and over-represents them in his sockies. ::: 07:48, October 3, 2010 (UTC) ::::(May I edit here?) I already thought magnus was using different computers. I dont think magnus ha created Dietrich or Brenda Pierlot McCrooke 07:47, October 3, 2010 (UTC) :::::Yes you may. 07:48, October 3, 2010 (UTC) Soclkies: *Indiaantje *Batulla *Kutnegertjesaidslijers (name may be not fully correct) *JezusOnzeRedder (according to wikistaff those accounts werre linked to Bastard) *Some Pierlot is evil 666 accounts Pierlot McCrooke 07:49, October 3, 2010 (UTC) :On wikipedia he spamds people that they have to translate Pier Gerlofs Donia's article. Pierius user name \ is latin name for this figure. This spam was a bi9t like that Drabo trial-spam Pierlot McCrooke 08:51, October 3, 2010 (UTC) ::You just keep trying, don't you guys? I can assure you you got it all wrong, I have nothing to hide and nothing to do with these people. And how could you even think for one minute I could be Honecker? It's ridiculous. If you suspect electoral fraud the savest thing to do is just prevent all users you suspect of having fraudulous intentions from voting or participating until after the elections. Dr. Magnus 09:14, October 3, 2010 (UTC) :::I think you have a problem Magnus. You deny the whole time, but you know yourself you maintain dozens of sock puppets. SjorskingmaWikistad 09:19, October 3, 2010 (UTC) :::It is you who has a problem. You see ghosts, you hallucinate, see things that aren't there. Haven't you guys been taking your pills lately, or are you perhaps on drugs? Just take a chillpill and relax dude. Dr. Magnus 09:25, October 3, 2010 (UTC) ::::I think you better confess. SjorskingmaWikistad 09:28, October 3, 2010 (UTC) :::::Look at you, what are you, Miss Marple? The Pink Panther, trying to solve the mysterious case of Dr. Magnus? Its really pathetic, you should know. Dr. Magnus 09:30, October 3, 2010 (UTC) ::::::Pathetic is your denial, Magnus. And by the way: there's little mystery left to us. The only ones who don't seem to know what you've been up to, are you and your sockpups. 09:35, October 3, 2010 (UTC) : Wow, I'm kind of shocked and sad to read and find out about all of this, since I get/got along quite well with him on Wikistad (he might 've gotten a bit carried away with the whole second civil war business, but who didn't?). Concerning User:Mellisánder_Chilonides though, I'm pretty sure he's not just another Magnus' sockpuppet; his style too might be considered 'bombastic' (as Dimi and Sjors write), but in my humble opinion it ánd his interests are still very different from that of Magnus. Echocho 09:37, October 3, 2010 (UTC) ::I've also had moments during which I really appreciated Magnus as a person. Really. It's sad that we have to do this now. ::Concerning Chilonides: I think you might be right. I don't know her (him?) enough to have an opinion about her. 09:41, October 3, 2010 (UTC) :::Melisander is very Magnusesque. I have seen her (his) talk from talkpage~s Pierlot McCrooke 09:44, October 3, 2010 (UTC) :::: I'm sure my writing reminds others of someone else as well, but that doesn't necessarily make me a sockpuppet. Echocho 09:58, October 3, 2010 (UTC) :::::Magnus style in cobination with being fan of mthological things an d tribes. is a hint Pierlot McCrooke 10:00, October 3, 2010 (UTC) ::::::I was unaware that Magnus had expressed himself as being a fan of mythology and tribal life. Echocho 10:17, October 3, 2010 (UTC) :::::::Pharaoh at Llamada is a clear example. He is magnus and has the same type of intresse as Melisander Pierlot McCrooke 10:22, October 3, 2010 (UTC) :::::::: Hold up, Magnus has confessed (to Sjors?) that he is actually User:Pharaoh on Llamada? 10:36, October 3, 2010 (UTC) :::::::::No. it became known that he was magnus after a chekcuser Pierlot McCrooke 10:41, October 3, 2010 (UTC) ::::::::::Because Sjors wrote "Pharao (Confessed sockie)" on this forum. If Magnus is in fact proven to be Pharaoh, I have underestimated him terribly (because those two users look little alike in my eyes) and then he could almost be just about anybody. Echocho 10:52, October 3, 2010 (UTC) :::::::::::There was a checkuser on Llamada. Magnus is active there also. And Pharaoh was proven to be magnus Pierlot McCrooke 10:54, October 3, 2010 (UTC) ::::::::::I don't think there's prove to back that up. Anyway, we should focus on his users in Lovia here. I suggest Llamada and other wikis do the same over there. We will lock up those who he has abused over here. 10:55, October 3, 2010 (UTC) :::::::::::You seem to think Llamada is a amateur wiki, but we have a pretty good maintenance as well. We have made a dossier over there for the Magnus case a few months ago. It is in the staff area of the site, which cannot be viewed by normal users. SjorskingmaWikistad 11:10, October 3, 2010 (UTC) ::::::::::::Not at all! I very well know you have some great new technologies and a well developed site level - which we hardly have over here. (That's why we needed a site council) 11:21, October 3, 2010 (UTC) http://www.llamadawiki.nl/wiki/Overleg_gebruiker:Sjorskingma#Tutang . That is the place where it was said. Pierlot McCrooke 11:02, October 3, 2010 (UTC) :I hate to admit it, but Pierlot is right: the IP (86.89.146.118) which is clearly linked to Pierius on this wiki and Wikistad is indeed shared by Pharaoh on Llamada(proof, which would mean Magnus and Pharaoh are indeed the same person. Scary. Echocho 11:19, October 3, 2010 (UTC) ::Well well. 11:21, October 3, 2010 (UTC) It really makes me feel so special you liked me as a person! To bad we can't be friend anymore. :The worst thing is that you say I am the same person as Honecker & Drabo. I am, by all accounts, not a nazi or a racist nor will I ever be one. It saddens me my brother compare my to those figures. Dr. Magnus 09:50, October 3, 2010 (UTC) ::Me too. Big disappointment. 10:55, October 3, 2010 (UTC) :Oh come on, your just acting all paranoid. Your not helping anyone with this ridiculous nonsense. Dr. Magnus 14:33, October 3, 2010 (UTC) Magnus on wikipediA: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Mrlob Pierlot McCrooke 15:03, October 3, 2010 (UTC) :Pierlot, I know your brain is the size of that of a squirrel but I thought you understood this was about me on this wikia, not on others. Dr. Magnus 15:07, October 3, 2010 (UTC) ::As far as I know I can confirm that Magnus IS NOT Drabo13. Unless there is more prove than when I was working at the case magnus. (Yes Magnus, You've got your own case on llamada ;P). So, If I'm wrong, please tell me (I hope so) Apoo banaan 17:55, October 3, 2010 (UTC) ::Dimitri, please check your mail. I and apoo would like to help you with this case because we have also a case about Magnus on Llamada (like apoo said above). Kind regards, TahR78 18:01, October 3, 2010 (UTC) I can confirm some things that aren't true. I'm NOT defending magnus. I'm telling what the evidence is saying: * Magnus is NOT BastardRoyale * Magnus is NOT Onderdaan (sock of BastardRoyale) * Magnus is NOT Verteller (sock of BastardRoyale) * Magnus is NOT JezusOnzeRedder (sock of BastardRoyale) * Magnus IS Indiaantje * Magnus IS Nieuwe Start Wikia Staff confrims this because they did a checkuser. Pierlot, you know that these accounts aren't socks of Magnus, so please stop telling that. When I've started with the case magnus I've had about 40 possible suckpuppets. Most of them where suspected because of the same behaviour. A lot of these suckpuppets where not guilty. The only way that BastardRoyale (and his socks) IS magnus is that he used/created the suckpuppets in an other house where he NEVER logged in with other accounts, because in serveral checkuser reports magnus just have had 1 IP-adress. Summarized: There is NO technical evidence that BastardRoyale is magnus. (Even the browser information/operating systems/IP-range doesn't match). I'm very happy that finaly a big "case" is started to for once and ever sort out what suckpuppets are magnus'. Apoo banaan 14:12, October 4, 2010 (UTC) :I spoke Magnus yesterday, and I got an E-Mail from him. He said he once told a schoolmate about Wikination, a schoolmate with racist ideas. The statement that Magnus likes the Apartheid is not true, he told me one of his South African innocent relatives was killed by blacks, and therefore he was against violence in RSA. SjorskingmaWikistad 14:18, October 4, 2010 (UTC) I thought we agreed that this was confidential, highly personal information, Sjors. Dr. Magnus 17:36, October 4, 2010 (UTC) :Ït could be however possible Magnus ahd created BastardRpoyale at a different computer and used different browser for it Pierlot McCrooke 17:48, October 4, 2010 (UTC) Its true Pierlot, we are both on a different computer. You know why? Because we are two different people. You just keep trying, won't you? Little devil! Dr. Magnus 17:58, October 4, 2010 (UTC) :: No Pierlot It ISN'T possible. When you are surfing on the internet at every click you make your browser request some information about your operating system. Information like: What service-pack update you you have, what version of flash that you have, what version of javascript you have, what your screen width and height is. And neither of them are linking Magnus to BR. The only way that Magnus IS Br is that Magnus left his house, drove a few kilometers and used an other computer there (and that évery time he eddited as BR..) quite unlikely isn't it? There is NO evidence, so you have to delete BR from your list. And there are many many many sockpuppets left, trust me. Apoo banaan 05:59, October 5, 2010 (UTC) :::it is possible he did that. It could be that he created bastard at the neighbors computer. Bastard is too similar to magnus to be not magnus or to be not related to magnus Pierlot McCrooke 06:03, October 5, 2010 (UTC) ::::And every time he wants to edit he walks to the neighbours?... Apoo banaan 06:06, October 5, 2010 (UTC) : This has seem to gotten WAY outta hand. Putting everything aside here's what we know and we can stop talking about *The sockpops he created (WJ, Ani-Yusf, Blanche, Discute) He has been punished for *There is little but reasonalble proof he is Drabo **It was totally wrong for sjors to do that agreed but it made a valid point about Perius being Drabo. Tho I still knida doubt it. *Little but Reasonalble proof BR is Perius but In the last few days BR has not made a edit so... : This is all I know. Marcus Villanova 20:14, October 4, 2010 (UTC) ::Same story for Drabo13 here: The only way that Magnus IS Drabo13 is that Magnus left his house, drove a few kilometers more then that he drove for BR (they didn't matched eihter) and used an other computer there (and that évery time he eddited as Drabo13..) quite unlikely isn't it, again? ::Once again, I'm NOT defending Magnus (it looks like it a bit..). I just say what the evidence is saying. I want as much as you do to know which persons are Magnus'. Blocking isn't in my mind (unless he vandalised with them, i dont know) but I want to know the motives.. Apoo banaan 06:01, October 5, 2010 (UTC) :::It's not all together thát unlikely. IPs do funny things you know. My IP sometimes puts me in Belgian Luxembourg or West Flanders - that's twice hundreds of kilometers away from where I live! If Magnus used two different computers on the same street (per manier van spreken), and one of them had the same thing my computer does, it's very plausible! Martha Van Ghent 07:38, October 5, 2010 (UTC) ::::Lol at this VuniMonkiv :::::Let's say that Magnus is Drabo13... Then there has to be a lot more to this case. I can not imagine that he's using sockpuppets so seriously just for Wikination (a game..). Apoo banaan 13:32, October 5, 2010 (UTC) ::::Indeed, Apoo. It's just a game. The fact that the discussion is sooo long indicates that either people take it to seriously, or, most likely, there is much debate concerning my guilt because proof is utterly lacking. If it was so extremely obvious I did all this, there would have been zero discussion; you would all unanimously agree on kicking me off and be done with it. Shall we call it a tie? There is no shame in admitting you've made a mistake, Dimitri. I made many mistakes, so I would know! Dr. Magnus 14:47, October 5, 2010 (UTC) ::Okay. This is dumb insane agreed. We're making a big deal and wasting time on an issues mainly that really should be handeled by Admins. Magnus here there can't really be a tie here but more or less a plea bargin. Even if you did nothing wrong just take a two month block. Marcus Villanova 20:36, October 5, 2010 (UTC) :Haha, lol, and be a political prisoner? Or shall I sue the state? Dr. Magnus 20:40, October 5, 2010 (UTC) ::@Dimi - Can you post the link where Drabo is on at wikipedia? Just curious trying to make my own decsion. ::@Perius - Also the facts they have are very bad the owns that make it look evidendent are these: ::*All sockies hate pierlot automatically without reason ::*all have same writing ::*It is very wierd to have like four people join a fasicist party at the same time right that deal with...more or less...apartied, and that it's lead member is from the RSA ::*@dimi - what does it mean to be "As we all see, BastardRoyale just took over the status of User:Pierius Magnus as Pierius' main account" ::*All are great in Dutch ::*BR hasn't made an edit in the last few days...which means that's kinda true. :From - Marcus Villanova 20:47, October 5, 2010 (UTC) Well, this shit scares people away, thats one reason why certain people may not be active. Then again, Drabo never really was very active. Not all suspected sockies hate Pierlot, and neither do I. I never really saw him in discussion with BR, and Drabo seems to hate everybody no matter what because he is a-social. I do not know if they are all great in Dutch, if some of them are then it has to be a coinsidence. And I dount Drabo really is from South-Africa because Apoo said his IP adress came from the Netherlands. So... Dr. Magnus 20:52, October 5, 2010 (UTC) :LMAO, Drabo is definitely NOT form south africa... XD Apoo banaan 14:38, October 6, 2010 (UTC) He is an insult to all South-Africans. Dr. Magnus 14:43, October 6, 2010 (UTC) : Whoever drabo is he's an insult to the earth ! Marcus Villanova 23:39, October 6, 2010 (UTC) :: I know magnus for a long time. I am sure he has multiple accaunts. But i have never seen him mis using this. Also i never heard Magnus talked about supporting the apartheid regime. Neither have i ever heard him talking in a positieve way about national-socialism, anitisemitism or racism. I did hear he was anti pvv wich is a dutch anti-islam/immigrant party. Futher i have not seen any proof he has a big similarity with Drabo. Jillids 18:28, October 7, 2010 (UTC) ::Those are some sharp insights, Jillids. And you are completely right, of course. That is why I am confident in a good outcome. After all, we are all perfectly sound, normal, reasonable people here. Dr. Magnus 18:35, October 7, 2010 (UTC) Another trait Dimitri didnt mention: *Unrealistic personal pics, mostly stolen from movies and games Pierlot McCrooke 11:43, November 14, 2010 (UTC) : This is getting old you haven't found anything yet it, it becomes a "cold case"Marcus Villanova Music is Life 16:20, November 14, 2010 (UTC) Is something known about this? Pierlot McCrooke 18:22, January 22, 2012 (UTC) Train Village We sould consider deleting it, That would be better for the wiki i think. Train vllage is not needed on this wiki. Pierlot McCrooke 15:48, October 13, 2010 (UTC) :It has been a part of our nation since 2007. Why would you want to delete something so dear to you? Dr. Magnus 15:54, October 13, 2010 (UTC) ::Becuase it is no longer needed and it causes conflicts Pierlot McCrooke 15:55, October 13, 2010 (UTC) :So thats why you want it to be gone? You created it, you care for it, right? So of it causes problems, solve those problems. If you have a son and he causes conflicts, would you abandon him? Or would you try to solve those problems. Think about it. Dr. Magnus 16:41, October 13, 2010 (UTC) :Yeah, also I think the conflict recenly was started by you pierlot anyway so your point doesn't really make sense. Marcus Villanova 20:30, October 13, 2010 (UTC) Immediate action This wiki needs immediate action to stop the enormous article growth. The wiki can no longer handle it. If I spend one hour on maintenance each day, I would not be able to keep up with the new articles for years. To Horton & Co - Stop creating new articles PLEASE. To the others - Don't f***ing encourage them; and please help fixing those awful stubs. Select articles for deletion if they're not in order. 17:35, October 28, 2010 (UTC) : I'm not in the council...but it's getting way out of hand! Marcus Villanova 18:31, October 28, 2010 (UTC) ::Okay then. Marcus: talk to Horton. We need him too to stop over-editing. 20:25, October 28, 2010 (UTC) :Even I've talked to him, even mailed him, I bet it'll be okay. Dr. Magnus 20:57, October 28, 2010 (UTC) ::I'll concentrate on Oceana stubs. It would be useful if we had a stub categorisation system so each of us could work on stubs of his interest. --OuWTBsjrief-mich 04:43, October 29, 2010 (UTC) :::I agree. Consider yourself fully authorized to design and implement such a system. Categories could be: politics, history and heritage, culture, economy and business, etc. 09:07, October 29, 2010 (UTC) ::::Ok :) --OuWTBsjrief-mich 12:51, October 29, 2010 (UTC) :::::I've just created a little example at Oceana Museum. Is it ok this way? :) --OuWTBsjrief-mich 13:03, October 29, 2010 (UTC) Pierlot's advice! This is jsut silly:If I spend one hour on maintenance each day, I would not be able to keep up with the new articles for years. Then you shouldnt be able to be admin Pierlot McCrooke 14:17, October 29, 2010 (UTC) :Okay Pierlot your our new admin! Now start to fix all these crappy articles! Marcus Villanova 14:21, October 29, 2010 (UTC) ::Iam going to wikify the page lovia in pictures. But Dimitri cant be admin anymore if the wiki does have 10,000+ articles. (or dimitri should have assistance from 10 VERY ACTIVE WIKI ADDICTED admins) Pierlot McCrooke 14:25, October 29, 2010 (UTC) :::Okay, but the thing is we can stop it by telling people that created the pages make them better. Marcus Villanova 14:28, October 29, 2010 (UTC) ::::We can do that, but what if everyone mass-creates articles. and they are good in quality? Pierlot McCrooke 14:30, October 29, 2010 (UTC) :::::I would like that but it is really not the case. Marcus Villanova 14:32, October 29, 2010 (UTC) ::::::What a silly argument. I can't handle it, and you know why? Because I am hardly allowed to maintain a strict and efficient policy. If I could do that, and ban articles that shouldn't be here in the first place, things would go a lot smoother. 15:19, October 29, 2010 (UTC) :::::: Marcus Villanova 15:24, October 29, 2010 (UTC) :::::: for me too. Admins should be able to delete crappy articles (after marking them for deletion of course). If someone disagrees he/she should complain with the Site Council. Let the Council be a protective mechanism in stead of having it to ratify every move of the admins, prolonging the clean-up process. 09:47, October 30, 2010 (UTC) :::::::I'd say that if the editor of the page is known to be fixing up his trash articles, he should be informed before deleting the page. Then you don't have typical delete-restore actions. --OuWTBsjrief-mich 09:54, October 30, 2010 (UTC) ::::::::Sure, that is what the marked-for-deletion-period could be used for. I just don't want administrative actions being postponed because we are waiting for the Council's approval. 10:07, October 30, 2010 (UTC) ::::::How about a stop from creating articles for about a week? We could just forbid anyone from writing any articles for one week. In this week we should all work on getting rid of the nonsense and the bad articles. There must be a button that prevents new pages from being created and if there is none then just delete every new page during this week (or as long as it takes to fix things). Dr. Magnus 11:15, October 30, 2010 (UTC) :::::::We just all need to do a little effort when writing a new article. Always ask yourself 'is this a valuable article?' Try to finish it within a reasonable period of time and make sure the quality is sufficiently high. We don't need a stop on articles, we just need good articles. 11:50, October 30, 2010 (UTC) :::::They are being created in such a high rate we need a stop. Not a long stop, just a week or so. Dr. Magnus 11:54, October 30, 2010 (UTC) :::::: . That's demotivating people. Just create less, people should do it from themselves. If someone creates a very good, long article he will be blocked? Very bad idea... What we need is a stub creation stop. --OuWTBsjrief-mich 13:35, October 30, 2010 (UTC) ::::I did mean stubs, in fact, should have beem more specific. Dr. Magnus 13:38, October 30, 2010 (UTC) :::::Should I delete my stubs then? Hillbilly Boy 13:43, October 30, 2010 (UTC) ::::::No :) 15:34, November 3, 2010 (UTC) Census: another take It would like to introduce another take on the concept of censuses in Lovia. Since the Libertas days (OWTB, Yuri, Martha and others will still know that), we've been counting users to know how many people lived in a neighborhood. On Wikination then, we introduced a multiplication model. So if there were 5 actual users with a house in some town, we multiplied 5 by another number, and we would get a nice figure somewhere in the hundreds or thousands. That's been nice for a while. On the other hand, there's fairly little use in that, isn't it? If I move out of two NC neighborhoods, there are suddenly several hundreds Noble Citiers less. Weird. What I propose, is another take on getting a figure. I propose that we use fictional figures, based on what seems logical. Let's say that the Secretary of Whatever calculated the number of inhabitants by city, town and hamlet every six months. We could get our population to increase at a normal, yet steady pace - which would make Lovia a bit more realistic (face it: million-dollar companies in a nation with only 20,000 inhabitants!). Since this is largely a site matter, I would like to discuss this with the site community. If we approve on this, it's up to Congress to write a bill settling the fictional side of this deal: including a cause about who should regulate the census, and so. 15:34, November 3, 2010 (UTC) : . If I read "tussen de regeltjes door" I see that you plan to increase the number of inhabitants rapidly. This can't be done, because the entire history of Lovia has already been written down on a few thousand inhabitants. Also, I like the concept of a small state where everybody knows eachother. I'm sorry, but I don't think this is a good idea. Though there is a change needed in the current census system. --OuWTBsjrief-mich 17:53, November 3, 2010 (UTC) ::A thing we could do to make the system look more realistic is taking the old figures of 2009 as a standard and then add up the number of sold homes, f.e. for Hurb: 2649+(27×50)=2649+1000+350=3649+350=3999. This makes it grow less. Of course we could also take the figures of now with the old system and then count up 10 for each sold home or so. --OuWTBsjrief-mich 18:03, November 3, 2010 (UTC) :::It's okay to read between the lines, but it seems as though we speak different tongues. Here's why: :::* I'' am not going to do anything. I am not in the government, and I will not be appointed to do the censuses. :::* I don't intend to raise our population rapidly. What I intended by proposing this, is that we have our demography under control. That we can slightly raise the population if we write about "an immigration wave from here or there" or slightly drop it when Bucu claims Oceanans were running off massively :p (joke). :::* Calculating sucks. Look at the most recent elections: all of a sudden, all communists live in Seven - the least densely populated state. Are we really willing to indicate that "all of a sudden, Seven's population grew massively due to communist propaganda"? :::It would make sense, on the other hand, if we (and that could be a democratic process) could add concrete, credible figures to our demography. It would give us a chance to make graphs about religion, language, family income, etc. I believe that would be a great gift to articles like Religion or Language in Lovia. 18:16, November 3, 2010 (UTC) ::I actually see the wisdom in ''gradually expanding our population. Since our history isn't very clear it would not prove to be very difficult to change it a little bit. After all those million dollar companies, epic novels and the endless list of historical figures and celebrities would be insane otherwise. If we do not expand our population now, soon over 10% of the population will have his or her own article. It's ridiculous. Multiplying the number by five makes sense; let's say a few thousend settlers moved to Lovia in the late 19th century and many more in the years following. Then naturally we would have much more inhabitants right now, because the fertility rate in those days was much higher then it is today. For the sake of reality, expanding our population seems to me like a good idea and by far the wisest thing to do. Dr. Magnus 18:17, November 3, 2010 (UTC) :::Correction: I did not propose to expand our population. What I wish, is to have a way of coming up with credible figures of our population, and thus being able to control our population growth. We could make it grow slightly, as it normally would, of course. But no rapid expansion: I don't want 35,000 thousand Lovians by next year and 100,000 by 2012. 18:19, November 3, 2010 (UTC) I'm okay as long as the numbers stay somewhat like they're now, so 4.000 Oceana people, 25.000 Lovians in total and so on. --OuWTBsjrief-mich 18:26, November 3, 2010 (UTC) :Sure, I didn't intend anything else . Let's say our maximum yearly growth ratio would be about 8 or 10%? 18:34, November 3, 2010 (UTC) ::And the maximum decrease ratio? :P --OuWTBsjrief-mich 18:35, November 3, 2010 (UTC) :::Depends on what Bucu writes in The Quotidienne ;) 18:37, November 3, 2010 (UTC) ::::Ok :P As long as they take in mind that Catholics and Protestants have the highest birth rates in the Netherlands (so, also in Lovia :P) I think we're doing great :P --OuWTBsjrief-mich 18:38, November 3, 2010 (UTC) :::::Haha . Be careful 'cuz I expect the Communists to start a baby boom program soon :p 18:39, November 3, 2010 (UTC) ::::::No, left people in America (so, also in Lovia :P) usually support things like this :P --OuWTBsjrief-mich 18:41, November 3, 2010 (UTC) :::::::"Usually" does sound like an overstatement :p 19:29, November 3, 2010 (UTC) ::::::::Does it? :P --OuWTBsjrief-mich 19:34, November 3, 2010 (UTC) ::::: why? there is no way in hell that a town like Adoha in a small country as a resort town would have 1,000 inhabitants maybe 700. NC as a historical place should at least have 25,000. Marcus Villanova 20:52, November 3, 2010 (UTC) ::::::Well, that's not a very good argument, 'cause Hurb is also a historical place. Imagine we should have 25.000 Oceana people... :P --OuWTBsjrief-mich 05:16, November 4, 2010 (UTC) :::Okay and Hurb can have 25,000.Marcus Villanova 19:40, November 4, 2010 (UTC) :::: :P --OuWTBsjrief-mich 06:04, November 5, 2010 (UTC) Could we get this done, please? Martha Van Ghent 10:26, December 24, 2010 (UTC) :Well, it's not really worked out yet. --OuWTBsjrief-mich 10:35, December 24, 2010 (UTC) ::Well it should be. Marcus Villanova Music is Life.Lean Forward.Walden 15:42, December 24, 2010 (UTC) :::Agree. 15:45, December 24, 2010 (UTC) I think we should have a simple Population Programm. Noble City: 40,000...Hurbanova/Newhaven 25,000...stuff like that. Marcus Villanova Music is Life.Lean Forward.Walden 16:18, December 24, 2010 (UTC) Clarification ::"Article 11 (the Secondary Education Act) preserves the right for schools to provide doctrinal classes for no more than one hour per week in high schools. Article 11.3.3.2.1 states that no extremist views may be taught." I would like some clarification into the matter. What exactly would you understand by what you call doctrinal classes, and is this article purely written against such classes in the religious sense but also is against atheist doctrinal classes? Also I would like to know your definition of extremism and what you would call “extremist views” that may not be taught. Got this from Religion in Lovia. Dr. Magnus 18:24, November 3, 2010 (UTC) :Doctrinal classes would be defined as classes devoted to one system of beliefs. In high school (a Catholic high school, that is), I was taught "godsdienst." Originally, as you know, that course was all about the Bible, Jesus and Roman Catholicism. Thát would be a doctrinal class. What we actually were taught, was a mix of psychology, sociology and Bible shit. That would be a partially doctrinal class, I guess. You understand my point? I'm sorry for being unclear here . :If an atheist teacher tells their children they must believe Dawkins and burn their family Bibles, then yes, those classes are forbidden. :The REAC is the body that decides whether a class is extremist or not. You'll probably find a great definition on Wikipedia. 18:33, November 3, 2010 (UTC) ::Obviously, for the sake of being neutral, children at schools will be taught both the theories of creationism aswell as the evolution theory. They will be taught about the origins and beliefs of christians, muslims, humanists and atheists alike. What is right and what is wrong is left in the middle. This would be on an average, open school. I suppose there are also schools that offer religious education, as there are in any nation. Those schools should be free to offer religiously influenced education, as they are in the Netherlands. In fact, in the Netherlands Christian schools may forbid female and homosexual teachers if they choose not to allow them. Parents have the choice to send their kids to whatever school they like. Now that is what I call freedom of speech. Dr. Magnus 18:42, November 3, 2010 (UTC) ::::Of course they will be taught all theories; but what a MIND-BOGGLING IDEA to "leave in the middle" what's right and wrong !?!? So you want us to teach them that cell phones were invented in the previous century (one theory) and ALSO that they were invented by The Giant Spaghetti Dimitri-Liking Monster (not so true theory)? WTF. Then we could better move back into our caves........ 19:28, November 3, 2010 (UTC) :::::I think he meant to say "leave in the middle whether THE BIBLE is wrong or right". --OuWTBsjrief-mich 19:33, November 3, 2010 (UTC) ::::::Of course. Dr. Magnus 19:37, November 3, 2010 (UTC) :::::::Even that is rather absurd. Scientists know when the Bible texts were written; they know what was mistranslated. Anyway, teachers shouldn't be telling students "Well kids, God doesn't exist. Get over it." - I agree on that one with you guys. But hell yeah, teachers should be able to tell pupils about the facts behind that old book. (My former teacher of 'godsdienst' actually did that too, although he is Christian (I suppose)). 19:38, November 3, 2010 (UTC) ::::::::No, as a Catholic I think normal people are not able to interpreteren (whatever that might be in English) the Bible at their own. A simple teacher is not able to do it correctly. However, as long as the local priest tells the children in the church that their teacher is lying, it's ok. --OuWTBsjrief-mich 19:40, November 3, 2010 (UTC) :::::True, agreed. But when it comes to the question "how was the earth created", and this was my original point, it should be left in the middle which is right or wrong. The teacher can be a creationist or a big bang theory believer, but regardless of what the teacher believes is rightr, or you, or me, or anyone, what is the truth should be left in the middle. So do nor ask a pupil on a test "who created the earth" and if he or she writes "God, in six days" instead of "big bang", he or she gets the question wrong. Dr. Magnus 19:42, November 3, 2010 (UTC) ::::::Indeed, actually that was a question at ANW (algemene natuurwetenschappen) two years ago. I got in a heavy discussion with my teacher and eventually I got the two points for the question, so I just got a 5,5 :P --OuWTBsjrief-mich 19:47, November 3, 2010 (UTC) :::::And to prevent this shit from happening in the future we will let teacher tell the kids about both versions of the earth's creation, and then aprove of both answers on an official test. Dr. Magnus 20:01, November 3, 2010 (UTC) ::::::I am totally flabbergasted. This is not an insult, but are you both SICK? Tell them the earth was created 6,000 years ago by a grumpy old man that likes genocides and wicked apples, on some day of the week? You're nuts willing to teach this. 21:32, November 3, 2010 (UTC) :::::::Even the US teaches upon a by-default atheistic point of view, especially in science/physics. I mean, you can't say there's a God while you can also say that the universe could, mathematically speaking, create itself out of nothing. (To the ignorant Christians: pull your head out of your Bible and learn about String Theory, Heisenberg Uncertainty, and Quantum Mechanics before you say that God had to create the universe. The universe can be made out of nothing on its own. No magic needed.) Edward Hannis 23:14, November 3, 2010 (UTC) ::::::::Don't confuse God with magic. Why can't you say that? I could say exactly the reverse: You can't say the universe could, mathematically speaking, create itself out of nothing, while you can also say that there's a God who, biblically speaking, created the universe. --OuWTBsjrief-mich 05:12, November 4, 2010 (UTC) ::::::We tell them the earth was created by either God or that "the big bang" did it. We could mention the 6,000 years but I'm not really buying that, personally. Why is it sick to tell children about both theories? Because that's what they are: theories and nothing more. Neither of us were there when the earth was created. Dr. Magnus 07:49, November 4, 2010 (UTC) :::::::Indeed, the 6.000 years could be problematic, it could be mentioned however :P Well, at least human beings were walking on the planet when God just created the earth according to our theory :) --OuWTBsjrief-mich 17:34, November 4, 2010 (UTC) ::::::Our theory, like all others, has its flaws. Because it is just a theory; neither you or me was there when the earth was created, after all. I just believe that someone creating the earth the way you create a really good sculpture or a painting, as God created Earth, sounds more plausible then the idea of some silly "bang" (as in: an explosion?) which creates earth. Explosions destroy things, they do not form something that wasn't there in the first place, and neither can they happen in an empty space with "nothing" in it. The big bang is a silly theory. To me it sounds as silly as the theory of creationism sounds to others. Because scientists have no idea what the big bang actually was, neither have Christians any idea how God created the earth. All we know is this: the earth was created. Somewhere, everything just began. One is not neccesarily superior over the other. Atheists, step out of the little world inside your own heads for once, and get real! At least 90% of the world is religious, take that into account! Do not think of yourselves as superior over the fellow inhabitants of the world; respect views may differ and so teach our children in our Lovian schools both the theories. If not, then you are neglecting and dismissing the views of many of our citizens as untrue, and bascially discriminating against our religious citizens. Dr. Magnus 20:17, November 4, 2010 (UTC) :::::::Where are intelligent people with more patience than I have when you need them... (YURI: WAKE UP! :p) 20:18, November 4, 2010 (UTC) (Continued) :::Are people saying Darwin/Athiesism is Extreme!?!?!Marcus Villanova 20:29, November 4, 2010 (UTC) ::No it is simple: you cannot say "The Earth was created by The Big Bang", nor can you say: "God created the Earth". You tell, in schools, that there are two widely known theories, and you tell them which ones. That's all. It's just as simple as that. Dr. Magnus 20:38, November 4, 2010 (UTC) Why is this conversation in forum:wikination and not the first chamber...this argument is kinda waste. Marcus Villanova 20:46, November 4, 2010 (UTC) ::By that (feeble) logic, I do believe that we should also teach about the Flying Spaghetti Monster, and how he created the oceans, the land, and the Beer Volcano. Just because it's a theory that some believe does not justify that we teach kids about it. And they're not both "just theories." One has proof, the other, speculation. ::And if you argue that the Bible is proof of creationism, then I'll ask you to teach them everything that book teaches. Like stoning women if they cannot prove they're a virgin. A book, by the way, is not proof of something. Unless you're going to tell me that Harry Potter is proof that magic and trolls exist. Edward Hannis 01:11, November 5, 2010 (UTC) :::There's a big difference between Harry Potter and the Bible. --OuWTBsjrief-mich 06:04, November 5, 2010 (UTC) ::::And that is? That Voldemort is still called Satan in the Bible? It's just two accounts; one of which we know it's fiction (Potter) and one of which we know it's written by humans thousands of years ago - without propoer knowledge of physics. Martha Van Ghent 07:07, November 5, 2010 (UTC) :::::Science and physics are nonsense, the only thing they try to do is tell religious people that they shouldn't be religious because THEY are better and THEY know more than we know. They are just egoistic. --OuWTBsjrief-mich 07:44, November 5, 2010 (UTC) ::::I don't think its that easy; if a scientists invents a new kind of medicine, the cure of cancer perhaps, I would be the first to congratulate him. But those who think science is always superior over religion and dismiss religion as nonsense, those people are just horribly arrogant. That's how I see most atheists, as arrogant people. Often well-educated people, intellectuals even, who see themselves as superior over the "stupid" religious people. The Bible tells you to love your neigbor; atheists look down on theirs. It is the attitude that I despise. Dr. Magnus 07:55, November 5, 2010 (UTC) :again stupid arugment, also should be in the first chamber!Marcus Villanova 19:24, November 5, 2010 (UTC) :::We're not egotistical; it's just that people tend to get pissed off when they talk at someone instead of talking to someone. :::And we are superior, in the sense that our arguments make sense. They day you argue that religion is reasonable is the day I'll tell you that there are currently little green men on Mars drinking milk chocolate, listening to the best of the Beatles. Believing in something does not make it true. It applies to Santa, it applies to God. There's a term for that kind of logic: wishful thinking. Edward Hannis 01:13, November 6, 2010 (UTC) ::::And if you're going to listen to what the Bible tells you, you'll probably arrested and put to jail, likely for life. The Bible is, after all, a beautiful book, no? Here's my favorite passage. ::::::If, however, the charge is true and no proof of the young woman’s virginity can be found, she shall be brought to the door of her father’s house and there the men of her town shall stone her to death. ::::::(NIV LEVITICUS 22:20) ::::Words of wisdom from god: kill women if they can't prove they're virgins upon marriage. Love thy neighbors, stone thy wives. Edward Hannis 01:19, November 6, 2010 (UTC) :::::Sorry man, you ain't reading the same Bible as me. Can't find it: http://www.biblija.net/biblija.cgi?m=Lev+22&id42=0&mv1=1&id43=1&pos=0&l=nl&set=10 --OuWTBsjrief-mich 08:41, November 6, 2010 (UTC) ::::::I looked it up, and it seems to be Deut 22 instead of Leveticus. Your version reads: "Maer indien dit selve woort waerachtich is, dat de maechdom aen de jonge dochter niet gevonden en is: So sullen sy dese jonge dochter uytbrengen tot de deure van haers vaders huys, ende de lieden harer stadt sullense met steenen steenigen, dat sy sterve, om dat sy eene dwaesheyt in Israël gedaen heeft, hoererende in haers vaders huys: so sult ghy het boose uyt het midden van u wech doen." 09:27, November 6, 2010 (UTC) ::::::(BTW: I really like this version ^^ De Statenbijbel ^^.) :::::::Can't find that God speaks this passage... --OuWTBsjrief-mich 09:31, November 6, 2010 (UTC) ::::::::Wikipedia: "Christianity regards varied collections of books known as the Bible as authoritative and written by human authors under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit." And since the Holy Spirit is part of God, and still is a different entity, and still not, but yet so, though not exactly, but still. 09:40, November 6, 2010 (UTC) :::::::::No, I meant to say that the Bible also uses bad people in order to show the opposite to the Christians. Anyway, if a woman simply doesn't lose her virginity before marriage there's no problem at all :P --OuWTBsjrief-mich 09:43, November 6, 2010 (UTC) (Yuri comes in) :@Dimitri: besides the shiploads of work I've got and the fact I lost my internet for a couple of days I just don't feel like arguing. These discussions have already been held and I don't like repeating myself in the short run. I'd say there are two ways people on this wiki look at religion: :* As a God-given truth which is equal to science when it comes to its truthfulness. Most pro-religion users don't deny some historic inconsistencies, but the core of it all is to be found on some metaphorical level. Anyway, they feel it is inspiring and makes us into good people. :* As a man-made construct which gives people comfort and a false sense of 'it is all okay'. These often argue that more bad than good comes from religion, especially due to its dogmatic approaches. Most people in this camp think religion is in fact dangerous and the world would be better of without it. :I'd say 'ask yourself honestly which one is correct'. But then I came to the following conclusion: religious people can't ask themselves that question in an honest and neutral way. I can start with assuming both options are possible, someone who believes can't because he knows it is such and such. 10:01, November 6, 2010 (UTC) ::@Magnus: I have noticed that you know * of the scientific theories that contradict religion. Darwin didn't say we evolved from apes, that is just a caricature spread by religious people who obviously didn't read On The Origin Of Species. Also, the 'big bang theory' isn't responsible for the creation of our planet. Do you really think that is what scientists say? Just 'bang' and everything was in place? I read the f*cking bible, the koran and even some works on buddhist philosophy. Why is it religious people can't read scientific publications? 10:12, November 6, 2010 (UTC) :::Because they ignore Enlightenment and Humanism? (or wasn't this a quiz question? ) 12:07, November 6, 2010 (UTC) ::::We all know that the earth's material come from the sun according to those scientific guys. Actually, we had to read the damn stuff at our Catholic school too. I think religious people simply have to accept that some people have, in my opinion, nonsense "scientific publications as their Bible" and irreligous people that there are religious people. As long as we both accept each other and take a little bit rekening with each other we can build a beautiful country! --OuWTBsjrief-mich 14:15, November 6, 2010 (UTC) :::::This is the classical mistake of multiculturalists, cultural relativists and other 'co-existence folks'. I don't mind people building mosques, worshipping Allah and covering their head. I do mind chopping of body parts, installing a religious regime and indoctrinating children. If people want to be religious they should be so in their private sphere. The state must be secular (like in no tax money for religions and no religious education) because otherwise you will always discriminate certain groups. It is not that I dislike the idea of living peaceful together, but when you teach Christianity at school you should also teach Sikhism, Shintoism, Buddhism (Mahayana, Theravada, Zen Buddhism and Tibetan Buddhism), Islam (including Shia Islam and Sufism tendencies), Rastafarian Zionism, ... 14:28, November 6, 2010 (UTC) ::::::Don't forget Jediism. 14:48, November 6, 2010 (UTC) :::@Hannis - I really hate, also, when chirstians say "Not the same Bible I'm reading" meanwhile the Koran is so much loving. People question the end but it was actually when Muhamads's town was being attacked by other arabs and was bit more grumpier and angry at life. Marcus Villanova 15:34, November 6, 2010 (UTC) ::::I think I will have to leave this wiki. I will not tolerate being called an 'ignorant Christian' by so-called free-thinking and open-minded people. I can fairly say, that despite being a deluded theist, that I hold my beliefs more humbly than any atheist on this wiki. The sheer hypocrisy of it makes me want to spit. --Semyon 17:08, November 6, 2010 (UTC) :::I understand your anger, Semyon, but leaving is not an option. It never is nor will it ever be. You know why? Because by leaving, you give up. Only a few Christian users are active at the moment, and we are needed. The atheists think of themselves as morally superior to us. As we say in Dutch those people have "een bord voor de kop", they claim we are mad and while they keep telling us they are tolerant, I ain't buying it. Some of them may be, but at the same time they are unspeakbly arrogant. When we teach children about the Lord it is called "indoctrinating" them. What a load of bullocks! Every school has the right to have religious classes and teach children about their parent's and grandparent's religion if they choose to do so. The fact that Lovia forbids this shows us the country is, and has always been, ruled by paranoid, militant atheists. They are right, we are wrong. They have proof, we have speculation. They are educated, we are stupid. And they rule the nation, and they make the rules under which we have to live. Reality bites. Dr. Magnus 17:18, November 6, 2010 (UTC) ::::@Magnus: I couldn't summarize it any better. Do you know why atheists are often this arrogant? Because great men (and woman!) struggled for centuries to free themselves from the oppression by religion. From Socrates to Darwin, the best of mankind had to suffer exclusion and prosecution by deluded dogmatics. Another thing: scientists aren't the ones who claim they have a solution to everything, it are the priests and imams. It is religion that promotes itself as 'the entire truth presented to us by God almighty'. I don't have all the answers but you don't have them either. This doesn't mean we can 'all have our truths', we should simply try to find it by a questionable but neutral method that accepts its own boundaries. Revelations, holy books and fatwas do not qualify! 08:28, November 7, 2010 (UTC) :::::Hahha :P Sure we don't have an explanation for everything, but what makes scientific publications qualify and the bible not? --OuWTBsjrief-mich 08:32, November 7, 2010 (UTC) (Schoolstrijd continued) :*The base attitude of a scientist when he publishes something: "I made a theory which I can back up with evidence to a certain level and, though it might prove wrong or incomplete in the future, it offers a functional explanation. Please feel free to criticize it. If you have a sufficient amount of proof against it I will be disappointed but I also will accept that I have to let my old views go." :*The base attitude of a religion when it publishes something: "Behold truth as given to us from above! (trough a prophet or a holy book) If you deny this you are a heretic, and if you have proof against my fatwa/geocentrism/holy doctrine I will either (1) burn you to death after chopping off various body parts or (2) call you names like 'intolerant' because you didn't get the allegorical level of it all. :Is that sufficient? 08:45, November 7, 2010 (UTC) ::I'm not convinced. Many Christians (if not most) have accepted heliocentrism and atoms and stuff like that. They are not mentioned in the Holy Book, they are not denied, nor are they said to be existent. Christian are conservative, but they are not the same as in Mediaevel times. We call you intolerant, because you do not want us to een kruisje slaan if we want to or teach our children our Christian morals and values. Sure, we are willing to show our children the atomic theory, to tell them the Sun is in the middle of the zonnestelsel and to teach them about atheistic views. But why shan't we be able to have the possibility to give them Christian lessons if they themselves want to? --OuWTBsjrief-mich 08:52, November 7, 2010 (UTC) :::I don't mind teaching your children about Jezus, God almighty and Christian values. But (1) this is not a task of the entire community, religion and state must be kept separated. (2) I'd add evolution theory to your list, but that is a task of publicly funded schools since it can be proven (in spite of what various priests may say). (3) Children are often forced by their parents because they will belief everything mommy and daddy say in a serious way. :::PS: Religion claims to have truth simply by claiming it, science searches for truth while currently excusing itself for being imperfect. I prefer the honesty of the last over the hypocrisy of the first. I'm not saying we should eradicate religion, I just think it should be a private thing. 08:58, November 7, 2010 (UTC) ::::1. Could be solved easily: two schools in Hurb: 1 for atheists and 1 for Christians. 2. I do believe the evolution theory is possible, but I also believe most animals currently walking the planet were brought to us by God. Evolution has just started. 3. It isn't forcing then; it's taking over the views of the parents. Opvoeding as they call it in Dutch. Parents also learn their children to speak and to shit in the toilet. ::::Religion and science are not as separate as you think they are. Religious people believe parts of the scientific stuff and many scientists are religious. Ze vullen de gaatjes van een ander op è. I'd propose the following: one school financed by the state which teaches everything as you would like to see it and one school financed by the Catholic Church which teaches Christian morals and values and where the children are allowed to pray, where the priest may visit the school and where they also learn everything a normal school kid would learn, like evolution theory (though I doubt that something for the primary school...) --OuWTBsjrief-mich 09:05, November 7, 2010 (UTC) :::::(1) I must say that my relative easy approach to religious people (as opposed to the real militant ones that like to shoot you trough the head and burn down churches) is based on the counterweight that a balanced education can give. I have a better proposal: offer religious classes after the regular school hours. (2) Evolution has been going on for quite a while, ever been to Burgess Shale? I'd like to go there once. (3) I'm sure the kids of neo-nazi's will grow up with a good education too, right? For me, this whole discussion isn't about religion or science, it is about a neutral method that bases its views on evidence. 09:15, November 7, 2010 (UTC) ::::::1. I have an even better idea and I'll work it out as soon as possible. 2. No, too far away. 3. The entire problem IS giving them a neutral method, which ultimately is the best way to make an entire community atheist. --OuWTBsjrief-mich 09:20, November 7, 2010 (UTC) :::::::But that is the essence, right? You can give them a neutral method which will cause a fall in believers (though I don't think they wont all turn atheist, I know a lot of people who believe in God and Jezus but think the pope, local priest and Bibel suck). The only alternative being what could be seen as indoctrination. You are actually the first defender of belief who admitted that 'offering a neutral method' results in more atheists, the logical counterpart being that religion depends upon a non-neutral education. 09:24, November 7, 2010 (UTC) ::::::::No, I admit that "neutral education" is not neutral at all. It's made up by atheists in order to spread their views. --OuWTBsjrief-mich 09:27, November 7, 2010 (UTC) :::::::::So looking at something without accepting anything in advance of the evaluation process and comparing all possible options is made up by atheists? I must agree that a deeply religious person probably wont come up with this. You are basically saying that I can't be neutral because being neutral is choosing against your position. That is wrong; it will most likely not result in favor of religion, but at least I started with a blank mind. You have just turned into a fundamentalist who claims that religion can not be looked at by reason, let alone be neutrally compared to another view. 09:37, November 7, 2010 (UTC) ::::::::::No, I'm basically saying that your educational system which you call "neutral" is not neutral at all. --OuWTBsjrief-mich 09:41, November 7, 2010 (UTC) :::::::::::It's not supposed to be neutral - it is meant to be providing students the tools to think critically and handle claims with scientific methods. 09:45, November 7, 2010 (UTC) ::::::::::::Indeed, "thinking critically" is the praying of atheists and "scientific methods" are their dogmas. A good Christian doesn't think critically, he believes in God and he'll come in Heaven. --OuWTBsjrief-mich 09:48, November 7, 2010 (UTC) :::::::::::::I'll consider that a confession. 09:48, November 7, 2010 (UTC) ::::::::::::::I know, but that's because you think "thinking critically" is good, I think it's useless and bad. --OuWTBsjrief-mich 09:51, November 7, 2010 (UTC) :::::::::::::::Funny. What process then made you (=Christians) stop genociding people (it's in the Bible, dude) and love your neighbors? Oh, right, critical thinking. 09:54, November 7, 2010 (UTC) ::::::::::::::::No, it's cultural influence and selective thinking. --OuWTBsjrief-mich 09:55, November 7, 2010 (UTC) :::::::::::::::::Haha! So good. 09:56, November 7, 2010 (UTC) ::::::::::::::::::Goed è :P --OuWTBsjrief-mich 09:58, November 7, 2010 (UTC) :Neutral means 'not pre-occupied with any of the possible options and critically examining them all'. You are a fundamentalist if you deny religion can be studied from such a point of view. 09:49, November 7, 2010 (UTC) ::It can be studied, but it shouldn't be. Religion is not science and science is not religion (sounds contradictive to what I said above but it isnt) --OuWTBsjrief-mich 09:51, November 7, 2010 (UTC) :::Religious people from extreme to desperate: this is the only truth --> this is an imperfect depiction of an absolute truth --> it's allegorical and inspires people to do good --> it is equally true to other views and can't by studied neutrally (because you'd start from your view). --> (this is the step I'd accept) it is my private belief which I have the right to hold on to but I shouldn't be forcing it upon others when I can't back it up. (Somehow they never get this far...) 09:55, November 7, 2010 (UTC) ::::That's because it's so paradoxical. Those people would accept critical thought and apply it, but not apply it fully. It's on the brim between being critical and being not critical enough. 09:57, November 7, 2010 (UTC) :::::I don't want to force it upon others, I'm just having a discussion with you guys about the education system of Lovia, which, in my opinion, should be equal. --OuWTBsjrief-mich 09:57, November 7, 2010 (UTC) ::::::We're not blaming you for having this discussion of course ; it's the only way to allow critical thinking in our legislative process. What we're "blaming" you for, is not willing to allow (enough) critical thought in childrens' education once we would have established an educational network. 09:59, November 7, 2010 (UTC) :::::::No, I have no problem with critical thought in education (though if I was the boss, I'd surely taken it out of it), I can live with that. The biggest problem is that children may not say a little prayer or ask a school priest for help when they need it. Cultural transmission goes via the parents and the school! :) --OuWTBsjrief-mich 10:03, November 7, 2010 (UTC) ::::::::I'm not sure what makes you think they can't do that? The schools may not organize them, and if they do (only secondary education), children should have the choice not to participate. That's what the law says. Any child could btw "consult" a priest. Why need a school for that? 10:08, November 7, 2010 (UTC) :::::::::Indeed. No-one prohibits praying at school as long as it doesn't disturb in a serious way (like when you have to sing or do some ritual bathing). And school priests are not necessary as you can go to the priest of the local church. 10:09, November 7, 2010 (UTC) ::::::::::That's exactly the problem. It'll "disturb". And school priests are necessary for being able to go to the church during the middagpauze and for consulting him with problems at school or problems with teachers and so on. You have to be able to reach him at school. --OuWTBsjrief-mich 10:11, November 7, 2010 (UTC) :::::::::::Seriously? 10:14, November 7, 2010 (UTC) ::::::::::::Yeah, school's a few miles away from the RCC Saint Urban :P Anyway, I think we've solved the problem now, 'cause Pope Urban I Educational Institute has a priest children can consult also when the normal educational system is running :) --OuWTBsjrief-mich 10:17, November 7, 2010 (UTC) ::::::Easy Soultuion: Run a Public school system (of cousre free). Or Government run Charter schools (at either 2,000 or 2,500 dollars). Marcus Villanova 14:38, November 7, 2010 (UTC) :::::::No, we have a good solution now :) The extra costs are way too much. I appreciate your ideas though :) --OuWTBsjrief-mich 14:44, November 7, 2010 (UTC)